Higher Jumpers Is Not The Same As Lower Barriers, or A-list Change != Rebuttal

[Tristan Louis did an analysis of shift in top blog slots,
I posted the following to rebut the idea some people seemed to be drawing from it, that since there's movement in top slots, the gatekeeper analysis is somehow invalidated. I think it's the reverse and worse, the results show we're getting more professional media types as gatekeepers, sort of a reversion to and from the mean (pun intended)]

What provoked this line of thinking was
a
recent comment by Doc Searls
in which he says that "being an alpha blogger was like being an alpha paramecium."

The more familiar phrase is "Big fish in a small pond". The argument then typically proceeds that since there are many ponds, each with their own big and small fish, it doesn't matter. But the problem is, what if it's your pond?

"This provided me with two points in time: One in May 2005 and one in February 2006, 9 months later. If the theory of gatekeepers held true, the lists should have been pretty consistent."

No. Not at all. I don't know what theory of gatekeepers has ever said "The Top 100 should be consistent over all time.". I certainly haven't said that. The formulations I use frequently are "On any given topic, a very few "gatekeepers" wield enormous power over who is widely heard", or "On any given topic, attention is dominated by a handful of gatekeepers". This does NOT say that the top 100 most popular bloggers in the world never change.

Indeed, given the growth (even exaggerated), I would *not* expect the top 100 to be static. In any expanding system, it's common for bigger players to come in from outside and take territory from existing players. This does not mean anything to Z-lister gnats, it's all about elephants displacing gorillas.

One variant of this, I call the "Fame Is Fickle" argument. Evangelists say "Fame is fickle - look, look, many superstars of yesterday are forgotten today, and there's many new superstars". For some very strange reason, they then seem to imply that because there is turnover on the list of superstars, then there are no superstars. I think this is connected to the mythology that anyone can be a big star. Therefore, the implicit argument is that since the list is not static, the implication is that there is a reasonable chance to become a big star, neglecting that the chances are always very slim, and not examining the star-making system itself.

When one looks at the changes at the top 100 list, it's evident that the space is being colonized by professional pundits (Malkin) and professional media (Gawker, Defamer, Gothamist), knocking down the original specialist types (Scripting, Searls). This hardly means there are no gatekeepers - it means the techie gatekeepers are being pushed down/out by more professional pundits! And what's so great about that?

Consider "Huffington Post", case in point, as "More Voice For The Voiceful". Rich media person, many celebrities, gets much audience. That doesn't prove that the gatekeeper hypothesis is false - it's saying that very wealthy and well-known new players can get a position. This should not exactly be thrilling to Z-listers.

It is absolutely true that there are possibilities for start-ups and professional pundits. However, that is a miniscule number of people. Nearly everyone else is going to be slogging away in obscurity and powerlessness even if lions and tigers are battling for who will be King Of The Jungle, err, Top 100.

Or: Having more competitors who can jump over higher barriers is not the
same as barriers being low for everyone.

Karl: I'm the keeper of the New Gatekeepers meme so your quarrel is with me. At the end of the day, using the blogosphere as it is today, one often needs to appeal to a "new gatekeeper" to get a wider audience.

This may change though, as (if) automated aggregators improve. Then you only need to appeal to a gatekeeping algorithm-- which is more fair, in my mind.

This is pretty much the same "the playing field is level enough that anyone can succeed; will and character are more important than structural factors and contingency" meme that pervades thinking about social and economic inequality.

"When one looks at the changes at the top 100 list, it's evident that the space is being colonized by professional pundits (Malkin) and professional media (Gawker, Defamer, Gothamist), knocking down the original specialist types (Scripting, Searls). This hardly means there are no gatekeepers - it means the techie gatekeepers are being pushed down/out by more professional pundits! And what's so great about that?

Consider "Huffington Post", case in point, as "More Voice For The Voiceful". Rich media person, many celebrities, gets much audience. That doesn't prove that the gatekeeper hypothesis is false - it's saying that very wealthy and well-known new players can get a position. This should not exactly be thrilling to Z-listers."

Gatekeepers...terminology that is useful, but for me only insofar as it leads to questions being posed and examinations of power and dominance. It seems that these are considered givens in your post. There's no exploration of what character flaws would lead someone to gatekeep, to not share position and public viewing.

My standpoint, I'll have to admit is one of someone newly entered the blogosphere. I've realized that I am reading and linking to and referencing folks more because they seem like interesting insightful people who could be allies or people I'd like to sustain communication with, rather than because of their positioning on all the various social and hierarchical measurement devices utilized to institute a particular kind of blog-specific class dominance.

Actually, I've found that the folks with the higher ratings on various scales seem to have to least interesting commentary. They're either lazy or just not possessing of a layered analysis of their own subject matter.

The ratings are of interest for me in the sense that I get off on the idea that I could, just by virtue of the amount of communities I'm a part of (in real time and in blogland), accrue enough odd, obscure, politically radical links to actually bypass some of the more conservative gate keepers, thereby rendering null and void their power and blog class positioning as somehow superior to me and my blog. :)

Oh, and...

"This is pretty much the same "the playing field is level enough that anyone can succeed; will and character are more important than structural factors and contingency" meme that pervades thinking about social and economic inequality."

And by the way Danny? I don't think that's what Seth is saying at all. I think he's actually trying to articulat the ways that the unlevel playing field has shifted to support the dominance of a newer group of bloggers. This doesn't make the field any more level.